Not sure if this has already been posted a long time ago or not but was wondering what everyone's thoughts were on how long it would take to increase the playoff size to an 8 team playoff. And then the possibility of a 16 team playoff? I don't think the 16 team playoff will ever happen but there could be an argument made for it and the top 16 teams doesn't seem too ridiculous to me.
I'm not talking about logistics or anything I'm just talking in terms of the best way to get to the championship. I think 4 is too few as 5 has a solid argument. I think top 8 is the best way to get it although I think 9 and 10 would have an argument as well. Would you have 1 and 2 get a "bye" week sort of like the NFL if you include 9 and 10? For top 16 I think you include any team that has a solid argument for being ranked higher and then some lucky teams to be in the fray and fight for a chance. You might even end up with a cinderella team there.
Thoughts, likes, dislikes??
Comments
I think we will get to 8 teams in the next 5-10 years and then I think it will stick like for a while. Once the $$ starts rolling in from the 4 team playoff the NCAA will want to expand it, much like the NFL.
Bingo, just follow the money. I do think it'll be capped at 6 or maybe 8 teams though. You can't go with to many more without taking away some games from the regular season. Also, like Nick Saban said you don't want the playoffs running into that next semester either.
I would LOVE it to spill into the next semester. Could you imagine year round football?
Yeah, 'cause if it ran into the next semester all those guys declaring early for the NFL would have to "attend" classes for a few extra weeks. I do think it expands to 8 teams in the near future. We will still have the issue of the #9 and #10 teams bitching about not being selected though...
No matter how big the playoff will be, the first few teams out will always complain. Shoot, just look at the NCAA tournament. 8 is the absolute maximum (IMO) for the number of teams in a college football playoff at this point, and 4 is actually pretty much perfect, as I've said before and will say again until we see another big shift in big-boy college football. There are really only 3-5 teams every year who consistently show that they have the talent, coaching, and overall badassery to be a national champion. Every year, there is a significant dropoff between the #4 team and, say, the #6 team. The final week of the season (before bowl games), that would've been Michigan State vs. Baylor, if we went by the AP Top 25. A fun game to watch, to be sure, but with Baylor playing such an easy schedule (and losing by 32 points to OSU), it's fairly hard to argue that they'd be on the same level as the top 4 of FSU, Bama, Auburn, and Michigan State. Not to say that it's impossible for Baylor to beat any of those teams, but those 4 have shown throughout the course of the season that they are championship material. Personally, I love the unique aspect of college football that "every Saturday counts" and I don't want my playoff structure built on Cinderella stories or the possibility of a fluke win or two. Give me the top 4 teams, set up some fun bowl matchups for everyone else, and enjoy.
Let me play Devil's Advocate here. In 2004 Virginia Tech finished the season 10-2, one of those losses being to the eventual national champion Southern California (by the way, I'm still pretty butthurt about that pass interference call - we win that game otherwise) and the other being a heartbreaker to NC State. We finished the season ranked #9 and then lost to the #2 team and only other undefeated team Auburn by a score of 16-13. Oklahoma lost the national championship 55-19 to Southern Cal that year and to be honest the score was probably closer than the actual game.
In an 8 team playoff we are left out, but I don't think there was any big dropoff from Southern Cal/Auburn to us and I don't think in that scenario we would be any kind of Cinderella story. Playoffs come we have #8 Georgia playing #9 Virginia Tech (I had to look that up). I can guarantee you that the announcers are going to be talking about what a game we gave Southern Cal and how we shouldn't be overlooked. We win that first game and then who are we matched up with - Southern Cal in a grudge match. It wouldn't always be so good and I'm sure there would be a dropoff when you're getting to those teams ranked around #16, but there definitely have been some years where there wasn't much dropoff in #1 and #9.
Yeah, some years #1 and #9 seem pretty close together, but then it goes back to one of my favorite aspects of college football, which is the importance of every single game in the regular season. IMO, no 2-loss team (except for, what was it, 2007? Yeesh...) deserves to be in the running for a national championship. Having already lost (albeit competitively) to the #1 and #2 teams, or even the #1 and an unranked if we're going pre-bowl selection, it's hard to make a case that that 2004 team undoubtedly deserved a shot at the NC (taking off the O&M glasses for a sec). Again, would the games be fun to watch? You betcha. Would it be a better way to crown a true national champion? As far as I'm concerned, nope. Gimme the top 4, the best of the best, and let's see who makes it.
*EDIT* Now, all that being said, I wouldn't be terribly upset with an 8-game format because, as you said, there are some years where #1 and #8 are pretty close. Tougher schedules, a bad game, an inexplicable 4-turnover performance by a QB, ect. could all derail a championship-caliber team, so I wouldn't mind too much if we gave just a little bit of wiggle room to get into the playoff.
I also like the fact that every game matters in football. I want it to stay that way. I do agree most with your edit though. An 8 team playoff would give those top caliber teams who may have lost a close game to another top ranked team a chance to stay in the hunt. Kind of like the year Alabama and LSU played for the national championship as much as I hated that scenario in the BCS system. But I think top 8 would be the best. You still have to have a close to perfect season to get there. I mean top 8 usually all only have one loss maybe two but there's not too many two loss teams in the top 8 usually.
Oh man.... that year with Bama and LSU... Having a 4-team playoff with those 2, Stanford, and OSU would have been awesome.
My problem with the system and the fact that it doesn't allow for much if any error is that it doesn't reward teams for getting better.
The national champion should be the best team at the end of the season correct? The New York Giants are a good example. Finish the season 9-7 and then go on to win the Super Bowl. Now let me state that I don't think a 7 and 5 team in college football deserves a chance at the national championship. But an 11-2 team may very well be the best at the end of any given season. The new system helps with this, but I definitely think at least an 8 team system would be better. College football teams should get better as the season goes on and I like a system that rewards that.
You're not wrong, but enough teams have managed to navigate through a 13-game schedule unscathed that it isn't unreasonable to "demand" that. Besides, with the 4-team playoff, it definitely leaves some wiggle room for teams that lose early and give them plenty of time to convince the committee that they were better than that loss. i personally don't want to get too far away from the importance of the regular season, 'cause I think that's one thing that makes college football so special and awesome - every week is vital, and you better be mentally and physically tough enough to handle it if you want to be a champion.
Yeah. We definitely aren't in complete disagreement on the matter. I don't want it to get out of hand either. But I do think it's crazy how slowly college football has been to change. It has gotten better, but it's just strange to think we're only 15 years removed from a time when the national champion was decided by a vote.
As an example of why I would like to see an 8 team playoff is MV7's rs sophomore season when we won every game except the Miami game when Vick was hobbled by an ankle injury. It would have been nice to have an 8 team playoff as we were a #6 and then throttled Clemson. I don't think anyone would have minded seeing us with Vick in a playoff battle as he has probably been the most electrifying college player in NCAA history. The counterpoint to that would be us in 2007 when we were ranked #3 and had gotten throttled by LSU early in the season and we're beaten by Kansas in a bowl game. Obviously we didn't deserve to be in a 4 team playoff that year. There are merits and also counterpoint to an 8 team playoff. But ultimately I would like to see 8 teams.
I think it eventually will. Last weekend of the season is championship weekend in early Dec. Kids play that last week, go through finals at most schools, then get a long holiday. January, they get back to school after a long rest, play every other week in a playoff until March, then start prepping for the draft. Logistics would work out pretty well, I think. More rest and recovery, more football.
I'm pretty sure I read an argument somewhere on the net where they were talking about the 8 team playoff (cannot remember where though). The argument was that the P5 conferences will eventually support it but will insist that each conference champion be part of the 8 teams. The others would be selected by committee.
I like that idea, each conference champion is in plus there would be an additional 3 to 4 (depending on how many true power conferences there are at the time of implementation) slots for the rest of the schools in D1.
I do like the idea of the conference champions being in. I've always thought you should have to win your division to play in the national championship game during the BCS era. Obviously in this instance a non-champion could end up winning but the conference champions would all be in the running.
I've been singing that tune for months!
I even advocated for the non-power conference champs getting in to appease the underdog crybabies.
That would be my thoughts as well, but rather than stipulating which conference's champions are the ones given auto bids as is usually the case, I would go with the 5 highest rated conference champions and three at large spots. So if a conference champion from a mid-major ends up ranked higher than a "power conference" champion they get in before the power conference champion.
I disagree. Several years ago, Boise State was a wonderful example of a big dog in a one trick pony conference. Were they more deserving than a major conference champion with two losses to tougher competition? I think the five major conference champions as long as they have at least 8 wins, and three at larges.
The Boise State situations are exactly the reason that I think it should be the 5 best champions regardless of conference, specifically the season they beat Oklahoma. I had posted a more in depth description of the selection process I would install if I were dictator of the NCAA for a day, but it was basically the 5 highest ranked conference champions (ranking system can be argued) getting auto bids then a selection committee assigns the at large bids from a pool of teams determined by criteria based on being a top ten team, winning a conference championship and/or number of wins/losses, and avoiding placing more than two teams from one conference unless the pool has had to expand. I'll see if I can track the original post down later today.
I'd say about a year or two after they get done counting and dividing up the profits from the first three years of 4-team playoff. If they can double the profits without getting too much blowback about 'amaturism', player safety, and if the don't have to pay the players a cut of the playoffs revenue; you will see it double.
It's inevitable. The pressure to spread the money around will be unbearable.
I think we are locked into the 4 team playoff for about 3 years which should be enough time to get an undefeated non power conference team looking in at #5. Then we will expand to 8 teams with the 5 power conferences getting automatic entries, and 2 at large after the SEC obligatory second spot. I do want to see a limit of no more than 2 teams per conference.
i would be ok with a limit of no more than 1 non-division winner per conference (so a conference could get 3).
i also think with the expansion to 8, the quarterfinals should be held Christmas Eve and Christmas Day on campus to maintain the current 4 team structure after those 4 games are played.
i also think spring practice should evolve to uppers only/no contact. the spring game could simply be a flag football 7 on 7 exhibition for the fans with some skill/strength competitions for the linemen and the usual awards ceremonies, etc.
Then how would French evaluate lineman play for us? More importantly, how would coaches? It's not Pro Bowl weekend; it shouldn't be treated as such.
i just think amateur players should not be subjected to nearly year round full contact football. maybe give coaches 1 additional week in the summer, but spring should be about S&C and learning the (new) playbook IMO.
Given that cohesion and blocking along the O-line is critical to any offensive success, I'd say this is a non-starter. Simply doing drills isn't going to give the guys up front any real experience toward success. Sure it's fun to showcase the "skill" positions, but during the season, their success depends on guys hitting each other.
I'd love an 8 team playoff! I think it's bound to happen, especially if the big 5 conferences build up the pressure. Realize that there will always be a conference champ left out of the 4 team playoff, so therefore someone will always have a legitimate complaint about being left out. I hope after a good 5 yrs the pressure will build and they'll cave to the idea of the big 5 getting in plus 3 at large bids. It would make the job of the selection committee insanely easier as well.
hopefully next year
The best thing that college football has going for it is that it's not the NFL. I don't understand the need or desire to try to become NFL Lite.
As soon as a big brand program is #5 (Bama, Michigan USCw, anOSU, ND) and left out for smaller brand school at#4 (Boise, any ACC school not named FSU or Clemson, Ok State, VT, WVU, etc.) , we'll see a quick push for 8 teams.
This. As soon as Notre Dame is school #5 , there will be a push to 8 teams.
Sadly there is a lot of truth in that.
I think playoff expansion is inevitable because of
-OR-
I suspect they will go to 5 or 6 teams with essentially a play-in game before the playoff tournament goes to 8.
I've been saying it for a while, I think the best thing is 8 super-conferences each with a championship game. Each conference champ goes into the 8 team playoff tourney. You can still take teams that have good records and make bowl games so everyone gets their money. The only thing is teams wouldn't get the long break. They would get a week of prep time just like every other game. The season wouldn't go past the 2nd weekend in January. About where it is now.
I think it will move to 8 teams eventually. It will be at least 9 years before the conversation happens to give the three bowls the round robin chance to get each playoff/championship game. Then they will see the true revenue numbers and quickly bump it up to 8 teams
Isn't the tv deal for 12 years? I think we're sticking with 4 for that duration.
i tend to agree with you knowing how slow these things always tend to move anyway, but i'm guessing there would be ways to change the system during the 12 years without upsetting contracts.
they could simply add 4 quarterfinal games on campus sites (or 4 newly bidded neutral sites), sell those TV rights separately (or renegotiate current rights to include these 4 games), and nothing downstream is impacted other than the power of the committee to place teams in the 2 semi-finals games.
Not soon enough
Heard an interesting thought on ESPN yesterday as well is when a number 5 or 6 team in the polls jumps the current #4 team in the polls into the playoffs due to the picking of the committee. I don't know if they are going to have one poll that means anything or just look at the USA Today poll and the AP Poll.....which can be different. It will be interesting to see and find out how they pick the top 4.
That was one thing I liked about the BCS *ducks*. There was at least some attempt at being objective with the computers along with the 2 polls. Regardless of how the playoff is set up, the first couple teams out will always be upset. I was a little hesitant the first time I heard "committee," but I think they'll do a good job picking 4 teams who really should be competing for a NC.
True. Just with "committe" my mind goes to the basketball tournament mentality where we would have made it some years had they used the previous years analysis but didn't make it that year because the determination was different. Hopefully it works out reletively painlessly. 4 is a lot easier than 64.
with 68 teams, the committee is arguing about teams who would all be at least the 2nd (most likely the 4th or 5th) representative form their respective leagues for those last few spots.
with only 4 teams and 5+5 leagues, i think the debate will often be between a team whose league is not currently represented and a team whose league is already in one of those 3 spots. i would like to think that in most of those cases, if it's a close argument, the 4th league team gets the spot. i think we'll only see 2 teams from 1 league in years where a league clearly has 2 of the top 3 teams in the country. i think the 4th spot will usually be reserved for adding diversity to the playoff, but i guess we'll see...
If i were a committee member, my top 4 playoff spots (along with bowls using the current rotation starting this year) over the past few years would have been:
2013:
1. FSU (Hosts Stanford in Sugar Bowl)
2. Auburn (Hosts Mich St in Rose Bowl)
3. Mich St
4. Stanford (conf champ with 11 wins)
5. Alabama (did not win division with 11 wins)
2012:
1. Notre Dame (Hosts Florida in Fiesta Bowl)
2. Alabama (Hosts KSU in Peach Bowl)
3. Kansas St
4. Florida
5. Stanford (won Pac12, but not a strong enough overall season)
6. Oregon (best team in Pac12, but didn't win division)
2011:
1. LSU (Hosts Oregon in Cotton Bowl)
2. Oklahoma St (Hosts 'bama in Orange Bowl)
3. Alabama
4. Oregon (Pac12 champs)
5. Stanford (possibly best team in Pac12, but didn't win their division)
2010 (this one gave me the most trouble for the 4th spot):
1. Auburn (Hosts OU in Sugar Bowl)
2. Oregon (Hosts TCU in Rose Bowl)
3. TCU
4. Oklahoma (Conf Champs with 11 wins, won CCG)
5. Mich St. (Co-conf champs with 11 wins, beat Wisconsin)
6. Wisconsin (Co-conf champs with 11 wins, lost to Sparty)
For 2013, there may be a lot of pressure to let Auburn host the Sugar Bowl, but at 13-0, i just don't think you can send FSU to the west coast for their semi-final. but this shows some of the thought that will go into the rankings and playoff matchups beyond a simple "who is 1-4?". you certainly don't want a situation where #3 or #4 is playing a defacto home bowl game...
My goodness, that would've been fun to watch.
Swap Georgia in for Florida in 2012 and you've got something.
I just happened to catch some ESPN coverage of the ACC and Big12 media days yesterday. They interspersed ACC and Big12 coverage and interviews with roundtable discussions with SEC coaches (because of course they did). One thing that they stressed, and this was echoed by the executive director of the playoff organization, Bill Hancock, was that there is no limit to the number of teams from a conference that can be included in the four team playoff. Do not be surprised if there is a real push by ESPN and their SEC Network to get at least two SEC teams in the playoff next year. In the eyes of most in SEC country/hivemind, the limit of two teams per conference from the BCS was unfair to them. They do not care about diversity, they care about money. With ESPN having a severely vested interest in getting SEC teams in the playoff, it will take a minor miracle to have a four team playoff with only one SEC team. We are more likely to see them argue for three.
I am very skeptical of the committee, but I will reserve judgement until they actually start picking teams and/or screwing teams over. I think that the "human element" is much more prone to mistakes based on pre-conceived notions and "gut" feelings. Most humans "know" that they are right, regardless of facts and information. Compound that with inherent biases and monetary influences and you have a recipe for injustice. The "eye test" and the "human component" are what concern me, far more than any computer model ever did.
Can you imagine the screaming in December when the committee selects Bama to play Oregon, and Auburn to play Stanford in the first playoff. Or any combination of 2 SEC and 2 PAC 12, Big 12, B1G, or even ACC teams?
i think it depends...if Oregon and Bama are 13-0 and Auburn and Stanford are each 11-1 and no one else has 11 wins, i don't think anyone will be mad. but if conf champs with 11 wins are left out for 11 win teams who didn't win their division, people will burn things...
As long as they aren't burning couches, I'll join them.
If there was a way to automatically ensure at least certain conference champions would be in the playoffs, then perhaps the conference championship games could be "absorbed" into the playoffs. But that would either require one of the power 5 conferences to go away, or for the main playoffs to expand to 6 or 8.
It would also require the risk that a 8 or 9 win team from a weaker division could overpower an 11 or 12 win team for the conference title.
Basically, what I'm saying is that I look forward to the day when the conference championships can be considered official, or even semi-official/de facto playoff games.
it will happen as soon as the SEC doesn't get 2 teams in the final 4, or any other conference does.